Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument.

+

Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] (or [[angel]]s, etc.) in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument &mdash; especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.

Because most theists agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for God (or angels, etc.) in counter-apologetics, either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument — especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.